Conciliation Register

The complainant’s 10-year-old son has anxiety and processing speed difficulties and attended the respondent public primary school.  The complainant alleged the school discriminated against her son on the ground of disability including by failing to develop a behaviour support plan, allowing him to be bullied, suspending him on a number of occasions and restricting his hours of attendance. She also alleged the school’s principal assaulted her son. The complainant alleged that following a complaint about the school’s treatment of her son, a departmental representative victimised her by failing to provide her with information about her son’s schooling or the progress of the complaint. The complainant’s son no longer attended the school. 

On being advised of the complaint, the school and relevant government department indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $40,000 and the principal write to her son apologising for the way he felt during his time at the school and acknowledging he could have helped him more. 

The complainant has a brain injury and alleged the respondent theatre company did not allow the online purchase of companion tickets and that seating maps did not show the location of doors or steps. 

The theatre company advised that, in response to the issues raised in the complaint, it undertook a review and upgrade of its online ticket purchasing platform and seating maps. The company said the new ticket purchasing platform allowed for easier and more streamlined purchase and verification of companion tickets. 

The complainant considered that the actions taken by the theatre company resolved her complaint. 

The complainant was employed as a records officer with the respondent government agency. He had degeneration of his knees and ankles, which made it very difficult for him to deliver mail. After being provided with relevant medical information, the agency removed him from mailroom delivery duties. The complainant alleged that the agency then denied him acting-up opportunities and informed him he would not be considered for promotions in the mailroom, including a supervisor role that did not involve walking. The complainant said he made an internal complaint about the issue but was not satisfied with the outcome. 

The respondent said the complainant was not offered the opportunity to act in the team leader position because the position required work at different locations. The agency said concerns were held that the work could exacerbate the complainant’s disability. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government agency write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The agency also undertook to meet with the complainant to set out what medical information he may need to provide and to explore future professional opportunities. The agency also undertook to deliver training to management on responding to grievances and communicating effectively with staff.  

The complainant has depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and has an assistance animal. He alleged the respondent accommodation provider denied him accommodation when made aware that he has an assistance dog, citing a ‘no pets’ policy. 

On being advised of the complaint, the accommodation provider indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the accommodation provider write to the complainant apologising for the distress he experienced as a result of the incident, acknowledging that assistance animals are not pets and confirming that people with assistance animals will be offered accommodation in the future. The accommodation provider also undertook to develop a policy to prevent disability discrimination which would include provisions relating to assistance animals. 

The complainant’s son has cerebral palsy, epilepsy, chronic lung disease and an intellectual disability and attended a public school for children with chronic and complex disability needs. The complainant alleged his son was spending too long travelling between school and home on the respondent department’s free transport service for children attending the school. He alleged that the department’s policy of allowing children to spend up to four hours per day travelling to and from school was discriminatory.

On being notified of the complaint, the department indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department pay the complainant approximately $2,200 as a contribution towards the cost of arranging private transportation for the child to travel to school in the morning. It was agreed the child would continue to use the department’s transportation in service in the afternoon.

The complainant has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette's syndrome, learning and developmental disability and generalised anxiety disorder.  He claimed that, on his first day of employment as a truck driver with the respondent company, he told his manager about his disability and need for assistance with writing, computer work and learning new tasks. He alleged the company did not make reasonable adjustments with respect to written and computer work. He also alleged a colleague bullied him, including by saying words to the effect ‘dumb f**k, I’m going to get you fired!’ and falsely accusing him of assault. The complainant said the company terminated his employment before the end of his probationary period.

The company claimed it terminated the complainant’s employment due to poor performance and not because of his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $2,000 ex-gratia, provide him with a statement of service and offer a contact person as referee for future job applications. 

The complainant has anxiety and was a student with the respondent university. She advised the faculty granted her an extension to submit an assignment which she sought to accommodate her disability. The complainant alleged that she was subsequently sent a discriminatory email by the subject coordinator. The complainant alleged she was awarded a fail grade for the subject after alleging the subject coordinator’s email was discriminatory. She alleged the subject coordinator’s comments made her feel uncomfortable about seeking exemptions in the future.

The university conceded that the email was not sensitive or courteous, but denied that it was discriminatory. The university advised that the complainant’s grade was awarded before the internal complaint was made and by someone unaware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint was resolved. The university agreed to work with the complainant to develop a plan setting out her disability-related need for adjustments, pending provision of relevant information about her disability. The university also agreed to change the complainant’s fail grades to withdrawals without academic or financial penalty and to pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages.

 

The complainant’s 10-year-old daughter has severe epilepsy, autism and an intellectual disability and has an assistance animal. The complainant booked a camping holiday for the family with the respondent accommodation provider. She alleged that when she tried to change her booking to book an apartment, she was told there was a ‘no pets’ policy, even if the animal was an assistance animal.

On being advised of the complaint, the accommodation provider  indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the accommodation provider write to the complainant apologising for the incident and offer the family two weeks’ free accommodation. The accommodation provider undertook to state its commitment to offering access to guests with assistance animals on its social media page. Finally, the accommodation provider agreed to offer a staff member of an organisation responsible for the training of assistance animals two nights’ free accommodation and compensation for travel costs to facilitate an inspection of its expanding services to guests with assistance animals.

 

The complainant’s two young children use wheelchairs for mobility. She alleged customers using the respondent ticket booking service to book wheelchair accessible seating could not do so online, and must instead use a telephone booking service which was difficult to reach. 

The booking service acknowledged that the process for booking accessible seating is lengthier than the online process for booking standard seating. The service argued that through its phone booking system, trained operators could gain a better understanding of the particular needs of customers in order to match them with suitable accessible requirements of the particular venue, which varied in configuration and price point. The service advised that a number of tickets for each event were reserved for those using the telephone booking service, ensuring they were not disadvantaged in relation to those booking online.  The service noted that operators of its phone booking service also took steps to avoid fraudulent ticket purchases to ensure customers with legitimate access requirements were not deprived of tickets. The service argued it was not feasible to develop a system for online booking of accessible tickets, as there was no single technological solution that could adequately cater for the varying requirements of customers and venues and other complexities of booking accessible seating. 

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the booking service to commence a two-year process to deliver equal access to online booking of tickets for customers with access needs. The service agreed to keep the complainant informed of progress and to continue to advocate for the provision of accessible seating and facilities by Australian entertainment venues.

The complainant is blind, has anxiety and has an assistance dog. She alleged she was originally not allowed to board a cruise with her assistance animal. She said she was ultimately allowed to board, but told she would not be permitted to board with an assistance animal in the future.

On being notified of the complaint, the cruise company indicated a willingness to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking that the complainant’s record reflect she travels with an assistance animal to ensure similar issues do not arise in future trips.

The complainants’ daughter has a form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with spending her early years in an overseas orphanage. They alleged that the respondent private K-12 school failed to appropriately accommodate their daughter’s disability and that teachers unduly criticised and penalised their daughter because of behaviour associated with her disability. The complainants withdrew their daughter from the school before lodging a complaint with this Commission.

The school claimed it and its staff took all reasonable steps to accommodate the complainants’ daughter and noted that the complainants only provided the school with their daughter’s formal diagnosis a few months before withdrawing her from the school.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainants approximately $17,600 as a refund to fees for two terms, a contribution towards the costs of relocating their daughter to a different school and as a contribution to potential future costs associated with managing her disability.

The complainant has depression, impaired mobility, is often bed-ridden and has an assistance animal. The complainant was a public housing tenant and claimed he was not permitted to install a fitted animal door on his property to allow his dog to move indoors and outdoors independently without the complainant having to get up to let the dog in or out.

On being advised of the complaint, the relevant government department indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department install a fitted animal door on the complainant’s property at no cost to him. The department also provided the complainant with a contact point should any issues arise in the future.

The complainant worked as a bus driver and cared for his wife, who has schizophrenia, epilepsy and depression. He alleged the respondent bus company regularly rostered him on for night shifts despite his request that he work only during the day to enable him to care for his wife at night.

The bus company denied discriminating against the complainant, but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would be rostered to work until the early evening at the latest, subject to particular roster constraints that may arise from time to time and necessary reviews, such as staff shortages and/or timetable changes.

The complainant is deaf and uses Auslan to communicate. She said she was offered the use of Auslan interpreters on three occasions when she first started work at the respondent public hospital. However, she said no further Auslan support was provided over the ensuing years, meaning she was often unable to understand what was being said at meetings or training courses, including information about changes to her working hours.

The respondent hospital advised that reasonable adjustment arrangements for the complainant had not been formalised, but it was known she would benefit from access to Auslan interpreters. The hospital claimed Auslan interpreters were used for formal meetings, and lip-reading and text messages/handwritten notes were used in less formal occasions. The hospital argued additional use of Auslan interpreters would not have been practicable. The hospital claimed concerns were held about the complainant’s use of sick leave and her fitness for duty and she ultimately resigned.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hospital pay the complainant $5,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The hospital also agreed to deliver disability awareness training to its managers, with a focus on deafness.

The complainant has post-traumatic stress disorder, prolonged bereavement disorder and anxiety. He advises that he experienced difficulty in writing due to his disability. The complainant sought to lodge a complaint with the respondent government agency and was informed complaints must be made in writing. He alleged the agency declined to accommodate his disability by taking a statement by phone.

On being notified of the complaint, the government agency indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government agency take a statement from the complainant by phone. The agency also undertook to to review its accessibility and complaint policies and to deliver regular training to staff on delivery of an accessible service to people with disability.